I AM by David Norris

[Sam]

Pentecostal Publishing House speaks of this book as:

In I AM, the author engages hundreds of academic works to construct a particular kind of argument. Rejecting a triumphalistic reading of church history, he argues that the first century church had a very specific christological confession, one very different from what the church later came to believe. Combining theological, biblical, and historical method, Norris works to demonstrate that this christological understanding is biblical, historical, and logical.


Has anyone here read this book?
What do you think of it?
What does it mean when it says he rejects "a triumphalistic reading of church history"?

Amazon.com says it is "out of print" and has "limited availability"

[mizpeh]

Has anyone here read this book? I'm in the process of reading it.
What do you think of it? So far, so good.
What does it mean when it says he rejects "a triumphalistic reading of church history"? I'll let you know when I'm done reading it.

[mizpeh]

Sam,

Here's an excerpt from his book that I posted on CARM 2 weeks ago:

" Pierre Bourdieu, in attempting to demonstrate how groups contend with other groups for dominance, suggests that once a group reaches a dominant position, the next logical step is for the group to take control of the language in order to portray competing groups as heterodox. If the ascendant group succeeds on this front, they then work toward a complete domination of the language. Historically, this explains the fate of a Oneness construal. Once control was wrested from those church leaders who held to Oneness Christology, language was made to ally against their cause. Therefore, although J.N.D. Kelly is typical in regarding a Oneness Christological tradition as ancient, Tertullian alleges (against historical evidence to the contrary) that it was recent. At the same time Tertullian (in a negative way) charges that the Christology of his opponents went back to a Jewish way of thought! Because they are generally assumed by that church to hold the "orthodox high ground", Tertullian and Origen have uncritically been allowed to charge their opponents with being simple; a charge that was to stick and is still commonly assumed by church historians. Ironically, what Tertullian and especially Origen meant by "simple" and "uneducated" is that these Oneness adherents could not accept a Christology as philosophically abstract as Logos Christology and that they were uneducated in the sense that they were not able to understand how such an extrabiblical notion could be true. Further, the Oneness attempt to retain the Christology held by the majority was framed by Hippolytus as as controversy that "agitated the whole church". Yet, while a kind of Logos Christology ultimately won out politically, it was less successful with these same "simple people." Adolf Harnack charges that the Christology of Hippolytus and Tertullian could not compete with Oneness Christology, for "their theology did not correspond to the wants of men." For Harnack, it had to fail because it "conflicted with tradition as embodied in worship to see God Himself in Christ."

Despite this, church historians are too often complicit in a portrayal that paints Oneness adherents as heretics against whom noble Christian champions of orthodoxy battled. It strikes one as odd, though, that the men against whom these Oneness adherents fought were not yet fully Trinitarian and could not themselves have fully ascribed to the Nicean/Constantiople Creed. Origen, whose writings were integral in the development of the Trinity, was later condemned for not being orthodox. Tertullian, who provided the language necessary to formulate a Trinitarian construal is largely given a pass for his incipient Trinitariansim; historians couch this middle ground as Tertullian still "reflecting" on things Christologically.

In this study of history, we do not draw from secret sources or from speculative evidence. We utilize standard sources recognizable to theologians and church historians. Despite this, the reason Oneness Christology is largely invisible is that its history has been told from the perspective of those who "came to be orthodox." Analogously, this triumphal presentation of Trinitarianism tells the story of the "War of Independence" by explaining how the majority view with regard to Christendom's Christology was overturned because it was (analogously) merely a "slave rebellion." Some theologians sincerely argue for the validity of the evolution of Christology mediated by Hellenistic philosophy, claiming that there was divine initiative at work in incorporating "Middle Platonic/Stoic/Neo Platonic thought: in Christological formulation. Perhaps; but for me, such a baptism of Plato strains credulity." Moving Away From Orthodoxy, Chapter 13: Pages 153-155


To explain "War of Independence":

"Before we start our historical survey, we must confess a certain bias in reading church history, one made clear by the following question: what is the difference between a "slave rebellion" and "The War of Independence"? The answer is simple. The slave rebellion failed; otherwise it would not be called a "rebellion." Clearly the winner named the event. The label itself passes judgment on the slaves; they were not worthy of freedom. Their effort to get free was nothing but an unfortunate "rebellion." In contrast, "The War of Independence" succeeded, and the winners celebrate this triumphally; the label trumpets the worthiness of their cause. Given, then, that labels are themselves arguments, we begin by rejecting certain labels traditionally assigned to those who have held a Oneness Christology." Pages 152-153

[mizpeh]

And another excerpt:

" The second century closed by bringing into conflict the Christological views held by the majority of Christians and the evolving trajectory that sprang from the introduction of Justin's Logos Christology. On the side of the inheritors of Logos Christology were some of the most influential teachers in the church, but on the other side were influential teachers as well. On both sides of the issue, key postitions were held by dominant leaders. Historically, the thological label generally ascribed to those who opposed the Logos Christologians is modalistic monarchians, or simply, modalists. The terminology is more properly an umbrella term representing some variety of Christological experssion. While one may also call these Oneness Christologies, we will refrain, as we have thus far attempted to reserve the nomenclature of Oneness Christology for what we deem to be a biblical construal. That said, there was among these modalists a majority who held to just such a first-century perspective. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate how Logos Christology first became dominant in the church and ultimately evolved to full Trinitarianism. Because of our specific concerns, we largely focus on theological argument rather than teasing out related history that politically assesses reasons for the change." Displacing Oneness Christology, Chapter 15, Introduction: Page 176

[mizpeh]

One more:

Chapter 3 The God Who Is Not

Introduction

It is quite possible for people to forget their own story, to disown their history, and even to reinterpret meaningful relationships. This is exactly what happened to the Jewish people. In the time after Malachi was penned, cultural pressure influenced them to reinterpret their history and even their understanding of God. While their history is inextricably woven together with the God who speaks and acts, sometime during the late Second Temple Period, their narrative began to be understood in a new way. In this new telling of the story, the active God of the covenant people came up missing, replaced by a static notion of God. In this new understanding, God did not speak. He did not mitigate. He did not act. Indeed, the history of God's covenantal relationship with them was essentially reduced to allegory.....